Perhaps the use of quotes was simply a reference to a word used by someone else to describe the boy's condition. Either way I am not surprised if there is puzzlement over a perfectly good word not often used. I recall the absurd discussion a few years back over he really good word nigardly.
Nightingale, all I can say is that it is perfectly good word that I use when need arises as I have for most of my life. If someone objects I shall be happy to educate them on my intent. My word, I have been "ornery" lately.
I don't think the thread deletion was "absurd." The meanings and nuances associated with words change all the time, and so too do manners. I know that NG and Kentish don't use that particular cluster of terms in a racist way, but others are likely to perceive them as such and hence they should be employed with caution if at all.
There are scores of examples of words that have fallen out of favor for reasons of race, and probably almost as many regarding non-heterosexual people. Obviously "gay" and "queer" are terms whose nuances have changed and now need to be used more thoughtfully.
Perhaps a better example is a word that originally meant "stick," or "sticks" or "bundle of sticks." That word evolved to mean a cigarette and also, in Italian, a totalitarian political movement and its supporters. Meanwhile, in the 1920s the word gained currency in the US as a pejorative term for "homosexual" and has consequently disappeared from use throughout the Anglophonic world.
Is Nightingale's example that different? I don't think it is. And I would suggest that there are literally hundreds of words--thousands if we go back far enough--that have fallen into desuetude as their perceived nuances changed, words whose problems have been long forgotten. I'm not entirely comfortable with the loss of some of the words that are no longer acceptable, but the truth is that we are watching the natural evolution of language.
You mean "there is zero connection between the words" other than virtually identical pronunciations.
It's worth noting that the word you implicitly accept as a racial slur was itself originally nothing of the kind and hence had "zero connection" with its present usage. Yet apparently you see why in that case changes in meaning and nuance matter and words that were once neutral are no longer so.
The same is presumably true of the word for "stick" or "twig." I suspect you do not go around asking people for one of those, choosing instead a socially acceptable synonym like everyone else does.
The word in question predates the N word by more than 200 years. I probably don't even pronounce it the way you do and would certainly use it in the context of its meaning as English people do. It is a word not often used but appropriate when used on topic and its use is something we will have to disagree on.
> The word in question predates the N word by more > than 200 years.
Incorrect.
The word that NG introduced entered English in the 14th century. By contrast, the original N word is Latin and has been in use by the educated classes since Roman times. Even in its pejorative sense it--and, importantly, similar words--were considered neutral until the late 18th century, when they began the long march into unacceptability.
The N word is accordingly an excellent example of how changing social sensibilities can invalidate not only the central term but also terms that are related even phonologically. All we are witnessing now is another iteration of that process.
----------------- > I probably don't even pronounce it > the way you do and would certainly use it in the > context of its meaning as English people > do.
I know a lot of Britons who find "stingy," "miserly," "cheap," and many other words preferable alternatives. Their views are "English" too.
----------------- > It is a word not often used but appropriate > when used on topic and its use is something we > will have to disagree on.
Kentish: I was responding re your word that you called “really good” that you said was discussed here in the past (a discussion I don’t recall). I’m interested in words and etymology so I veered off the main topic of this thread to basically say that meanings and connotations morph for various reasons as language and society change.
The issue was that I spelled the word with two ‘g’s (as it appears in the dictionary) while you spell it with only one. The two g’s make it look/read even more like a word that Dictionary.com, among others, calls “probably the most highly offensive word in the English language”.
I said that the word you used can be problematic and I went on to explain why that is, etymologically speaking, giving several references.
Merriam-Webster states that this word is unrelated to the sound-alike racial slur “despite the word’s visual and auditory resemblance to it, a resemblance that causes the unassociated word (the one you used) to often be taken as offensive”.
Dictionary.com says that the word you use is often misinterpreted as being a racial slur because of the way it sounds, even though it’s not the same word. This is understandable in my view, particularly in speech. It goes on to say that “the source of a term is not as important as how it is perceived and used in contemporary language”. That is also eminently understandable and reasonable to me. I don't have an issue with that at all and, indeed, pay a lot of attention to language, a necessity in my profession and in the community activities I participate in with people from many cultures and ethnicities.
LW says: "The word that NG introduced...". To be clear, I didn't introduce the word - it's a word kentish used and I was responding to it.
LW: “I don't think the thread deletion was 'absurd'." The meanings and nuances associated with words change all the time, and so too do manners. I know that NG and Kentish don't use that particular cluster of terms in a racist way, but others are likely to perceive them as such and hence they should be employed with caution if at all.”
To be clear, it wasn’t a “thread deletion”, just one post that I wrote in response to kentish’s comment. It wasn’t “a cluster of terms” but rather one word.
I don’t think readers would have misinterpreted our meaning in this instance but yes, the word is problematic – exhibit one: the deletion and this discussion/clarification (because I don’t want anyone to think I purposely used “the most highly offensive word in the English language”).
In fact, I've never uttered it in my life.
Nor would I. Ever.
In speech or in writing.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2024 06:19PM by Nightingale.
> LW says: "The word that NG introduced...". To be > clear, I didn't introduce the word - it's a word > kentish used and I was responding to it.
Understood.
--------------- > It wasn’t “a cluster of > terms” but rather one word.
You wrote of a single word, yes. But the word takes many forms, including as a noun, both singular and plural; a verb, with several tenses; an adjective; and an adverb. The problem you were discussing arises in all of those cases.
--------------- > I don’t think readers would have misinterpreted > our meaning in this instance but yes, the word is > problematic – exhibit one: the deletion and this > discussion/clarification (because I don’t want > anyone to think I purposely used “the most > highly offensive word in the English language”).
I don't think anyone would suspect you of doing that.
--------------- > In fact, I've never uttered it in my life.
Nor have I.
On the one hand I understand Kentish's point that the term has nothing etymological in common with the N word and is, in effect, collateral damage. But on the other, whether words are socially acceptable or not is by definition a social question. Words come into and go out of style all the time, as I hope I have explained above.
There is nothing wrong with refraining from using a word that rightly or wrongly offends innocent people. Often that counts as courtesy.
------------ > Nor would I. Ever.
I'm sure I am not alone in knowing that full well.
Lot's Wife Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... I understand Kentish's point that > the term has nothing etymological in common with > the N word and is, in effect, collateral damage.
Yes. Merriam-Webster states that kentish's word is "etymologically unrelated to the highly offensive and inflammatory racial slur euphemistically referred to as the N-word, despite the word's visual and auditory resemblance to it. Because of that resemblance, however, both [forms of kentish's word] are often taken to be offensive.”
> Nor would I. Ever.
> I'm sure I am not alone in knowing that full well.
Thanks, LW.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2024 06:41PM by Nightingale.
No one is banning any words. All we did was describe a social norm borne of a reasonable misunderstanding. At that point the question becomes whether insistence on a pedantic truth is more appropriate than deference to people who reasonably take offense.
Every person can answer the question however he wants. We do not number among those who think the power of the state should enforce our preferences.
Disagreement is neither censorship nor compulsion.
It appears that this issue has been stuck in kentish’s craw for quite some time. Be free, I say! Use the word liberally and be proud in the freedom afforded by that one pseudo-subversive action.
Or reflect on why this one thing has so much power over you.
It doesn't but perhaps the absurdity of pc to cover ignorance does. I consider myself inoffensive by nature and have a love of the amazingly expressive language I waa born to speak. I do not surrender it willingly.
All I said was that it is understandable that some people--well, many people--are acutely sensitive to that word in its various permutations. Correct me if I am wrong, but the term "limey" is not related to the appearance of peoples who were enslaved for centuries and still suffer legal and other disadvantages on the basis of that appearance. I simply cannot understand the comparison.
But whether one wants to defer to others' sensitivities is a personal decision.
kentish: My born-in-Aldershot dad used to sit reading the dictionary. As young kids we thought that was surpassing strange. Much later, I've come to understand it. That's undoubtedly where we picked up the thirst for knowledge and also for precision of language as well as curiosity about word origins and meanings. I appreciate that gift he gave us because I find it most enjoyable.
I think it's equally fascinating to observe how language morphs, to the extent that some words even come to mean their own exact opposites (can't think of an example at the moment but I know it's a thing).
So we've always noted and enjoyed and discussed words in my family. Also, in jobs and volunteer work I've done I've had to be alert to language usage in order to avoid being a liability rather than an asset. That's one of the main reasons I even particularly noticed your comment about that word in the first place. I think it would have been better if I had just passed on by without picking up on it.
My main objective was just to indicate that language morphs and I notice just because it's my little pastime and a particular favourite, so thanks Dad. But sometimes language can get you into a pickle despite however good your intentions may be. That shows how vital, and powerful, language actually is to we human beings. Or most of us. Or at least, many of us.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2024 08:32PM by Nightingale.
> I think it's equally fascinating to observe how > language morphs, to the extent that some words > even come to mean their own exact opposites (can't > think of an example at the moment but I know it's > a thing).
That's a terrific question to pose, an incredibly credible question; one that fills me with so much awe that I feel awful; one whose answer we should sanction but certainly not sanction.
First of all, “people” are not struggling over the word emaciated. One person made the decision to put it in quotes, not “people.” That person was not “struggling”. It was a perfectly reasonable editorial decision.